December 2019

Total	Highly Unlikely	Unlikely	Possible	Likely	Highly Likely
16	0	13	2	0	0

Airprox #	Score	Rating	Details	ARC Comment
2019270	-15	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 400ft is reduced, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 400ft (121m) height limit warning and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. The description partially matches a multirotor drone.	Location is just North of the Southern Washlands Nature reserve. We note with interest that the helicopter crew attempted to locate and identify the spotted object but were unable to. EC145 was not transmitting ADS-B (which many drone systems can detect/ identify a conflict and issue warnings to the operator). EC145 located using MLAT. Nothing obvious to conflict (using ADS-B data). 48km/h wind at the altitude and location precludes most drones from flying.
2019272	-30	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 1,640ft is small, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. The object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details.
2019276	-30	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 1,640ft is small, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. The object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details.	No EMB175 airborne in this location within 10 minutes either side of this time. Reported times appear to be incorrect.
2019277	-40	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 3,000ft is very small, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than six minutes at 4000ft. The object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details.
2019286	-55	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 400ft is reduced, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 400ft (121m) height limit warning and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. The description partially matches a multirotor drone. The location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude.
2019288	-65	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 400ft is reduced, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 400ft (121m) height limit warning and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. The object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. The location was geo-fenced, which means that at least 80% of drones could not be operated in that area/ at that altitude.
2019289	-30	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone between 6000ft and 9000ft is infinitesimal, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than two minutes at 6000ft. No consumer drone could reach 9000ft in real world conditions.	Aircraft climbing out of Elstree would have been converging from the left – up to 2,500ft. Testing has shown that a DJI Phantom could achieve 5,800ft momentarily before descending again immediately. 6,000ft would not be possible.
2019299	-25	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 400ft is reduced, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 400ft (121m) height limit warning and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. The object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details.	Late downwind for Coventry is directly over the Coventry and District model flying club. As per airprox 2019244 late downwind for 23 at Coventry is in the vicinity of Wolston village. These ‘warnings’ are from the Pooleys entry for Coventry: Warnings: Radio controlled aircraft activity 3 nm to east, 0.5 nm SE of Wolston Village. Intensive bird activity to the North and Northeast of aerodrome. The flying field to the SE of Wolston is the home of the very active Coventry and District Model aircraft Club (CADMAC). It is entirely possible that the drone (or model a/c or bird) was below 400 feet AGL. Assuming a 1,000ft circuit; we have an inexperienced observer (student) reporting having spotted a drone 300 feet below them, when in the location where there is a specific warning that model aircraft and birds are likely to be seen. ARC recommend that UKAB contact CADMAC regarding this report and the previous 2019244. It is very likely that they were flying (perfectly legally and safely) and have been misidentified.
2019301	-5	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 400ft is reduced, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 400ft (121m) height limit warning and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit.	No H145 airborne at this location plus or minus 10 minutes according to ADS-B data. No helicopter and no conflicting traffic.
2019305	-30	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone between 6000ft and 9000ft is infinitesimal, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than two minutes at 6000ft. No consumer drone could reach 9000ft in real world conditions.	This location is above an FRZ. ADS-B shows no A321 anywhere near the BIG hold at this time (+/- 10 minutes).
2019306	0	ARC considered it possible that the object observed was a drone.		Balloon
2019307	0	ARC considered it possible that the object observed was a drone.		Balloon
2019308	-10	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 1,640ft is small, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit.	No Wildcats airborne at this time (plus/ minus 10 minutes) and location. Reported time appears to be incorrect.
2019311	-60	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 3,000ft is very small, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than six minutes at 4000ft. The object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. The wind strength (between 25 and 49km/h at reported level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable.
2019314	-60	ARC considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 3,000ft is very small, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than six minutes at 4000ft. The object encountered is described as a “Drone” but with no further details. The wind strength (between 25 and 49km/h at reported level) would make drone operations difficult, and would significantly reduce the range and heights achievable.
2019316	-40	The Board considered it unlikely that the object observed was a drone.	This is an eyewitness report from the aircraft flight crew only. There is no corroborating evidence. No photographic evidence. The likelihood of encountering a drone above 3,000ft is very small, as DJI products (75% market share) feature a 1,640ft (500m) hard height limit and Yuneec products (second largest market share with 5%) feature a hard 400ft (121m) height limit. (Most of the drones in the remaining 20% are toys which would be incapable of reaching this height or racing drones which are flown within a few feet of the ground.) It would also require the drone pilot to be willing to fly the drone illegally above the 400ft legal height limit. Furthermore, the technical limitations of battery energy density / mass would mean that any drone that was able to reach these heights would have a very short loiter time – less than six minutes at 4000ft. The description is of something unlike a multirotor drone.	UNKNOWN OBJECT. Sounds like a balloon.